Interesting. I'm clearly getting this message from oracle, so it's not a problem on my end. Perhaps a routing problem? It has been giving me this message for an hour.
The Treaty of Versailles specifically prohibited the German navy from having any submarines. They got around this by creating a company in the Netherlands through which the German high command ran their research and development.
After 1933, it's a different story, but it doesn't really hold as an example of restrictions increasing technological innovation.
I'm surprised that it is taking as long as it is taking for this to occur. It's also one of the reasons why it is going to be virtually impossible to stop.
Over the past year there has been a corporate hijack attempt of the bitcoin consensus rules. The thing that is painfully obvious is how totally disorganised and incompetent the attack was. Anyone who understands how the technology works has listened to armies of get-rich-quick junkies explaining how their new fandangled blockchainz are gonna takeova da cryptoz. In reality, bitcoin is now stronger than it was six months ago, as its nodes are even more decentralized, and it is apparent to anyone who cares to look, that the threat of a PoW change that started being bandied about in bitcoin, actually made the corporate types slam on the brakes before they got crushed.
But when state actors get involved, that is going to be an entirely different story. I expect that at some point over the next couple of years, governments (like the US) will black-list bitcoin addresses, which undermines the ability to shift funds. They'll go to coinbase, or every other exchange in western nations, and tell them which addresses they want payments halted in. Which is why technologies such as lightning have been developed, to further decentralize value transfers in the system. It will even allow for the routing of payments through a multiple of different blockchains if a route can't be found between participants.
When any state actor decides that they want to start utilizing this value transfer system for things like oil, it will be trivially easy to circumvent sanctions. The greater the value of the market capitalization, the easier it will be to do this. I make no comment on whether it is good or bad. In many diplomatic arguments, sanctions are indeed a perfectly reasonable and effective way of addressing issues. They worked perfectly well in Iraq until the US invaded them anyway. They worked extremely well in the former Yugoslavia, and have curbed many of the worst excesses of Iran. But that only works when you control the money supply. The US, unfortunately, has abused that privilege for completely unrelated reasons, and now there is a method of permanently removing that control. It is what it is.
The fireworks haven't even started in this space yet.
So I guess the takeaway here is that the secret ingredients to bitcoin's success have been facilitation of crime and corruption by obfuscating the agency principal relationship, thus concentrating wealth in the hands of the corruptible, leading to facilitation of bigger and better crime and corruption.
Congratulations are in order for Bitcoin both reinforcing the most degenerate aspects of human nature more effectively than ever before and for its charter adopters and boosters getting rich off the spiraling chain of negative externalities as the cancer spreads?
The secret to bitcoins success is that if you cry wolf enough times, and take away peoples freedom to such an extent that they are impoverished by the wealthy, they will find a way to exert their power. This is what happens when you lose the moral high-ground.
Freedom is hard. Actually requiring probable cause before being subjected to the justice system used to be a thing. Then the US government started stealing peoples money without ever even charging them with a crime. So now we have crypto. So the government can't do it anymore. "But but but what if they are committing a crime!" they say. Prove it i say. You know. Rule of law. That's what democracies are supposed to be about aren't they?
That attack on freedom now has crypto as a response. The thing that it is counter-intuitive about crypto, is that the solution to electronic anonymous and censorship resistant money, turned out being record everything forever. When someone can flick a switch and take everything from you, you don't have freedom. When you can access the ledger from anyone, prove that it it is valid, and be able to send your money to anyone, for whatever purpose, you do. This technology has been developed as a direct response to the insidious and anti-democratic implementation of AML/KYC laws on a global scale over the past 30 years. The extrapolation of these laws, given a long enough timeline, is slavery. Not figurative slavery, actual slavery.
Bitcoin is the technical response to that problem.
That’s a rather incongruous jumble of ideas and, as usual, Bitcoin doesn’t actually solve any of the mentioned problems. If you’re concerned about asset forfeiture laws, vote better to change them – your Bitcoin will be seized and liquidated like everything else, and if you think you can hide a wallet ask how that’ll work out better than burying money or storing it offshore.
Yes, you can store wealth in place by burying money. What you can't always do so easily is move it. But you can transfer bitcoins anywhere in the world without anyone blocking the transfer, and you can carry them in your car in a hardware wallet without fear that a cop will confiscate them.
Countries like Russia are looking for a way to move beyond the world dollar standard because the U.S. is able to shut down international dollar transfers for particular countries and banks, and uses that capability somewhat liberally. The U.S. probably can't do that to cryptocurrency, so I'd say it does in fact solve a problem for Russia.
A lot of us vote to change things. I've also gone to protests, gotten involved in party politics, all that stuff. It's not that effective anymore. 80% of the country wants net neutrality and a couple million people took the trouble to file comments with FCC; it made no difference at all. At some point you have to stop begging and start inventing things. As Buckminster Fuller said, "To change something, build a new model that makes the existing model obsolete."
> But you can transfer bitcoins anywhere in the world without anyone blocking the transfer, and you can carry them in your car in a hardware wallet without fear that a cop will confiscate them.
As soon as they’re converted to/from real money, they fall under the same restrictions as everything else, and most of the places you’d want want to live share restrictions on unregulated financial transactions. Similarly, while there’s egregious abuse of cash seizures it’s not like the cops haven’t heard of other stores of value. If they suspect you’re doing something serious, following the money in is what already leads to headlines about police selling large quantities of Bitcoin — and that hidden hardware wallet is going to be seen as proof that you’re hiding something.
That latter point is the key one: there are a lot of people in jail because they thought they could hide money. I would not bet on having the opsec necessary to remove money from your accounts without leaving a trace, and with Bitcoin any mistake means you’ve left an irrevocable evidence trail behind.
I'm not talking about hiding money. Plenty of people have had large amounts of perfectly legal and reported cash confiscated from their vehicles. They're often able to get it back eventually but only by suing. With a hardware wallet the cop can take it, but it won't make any difference.
All of which is beside the point of the actual article, which is about Russia using crypto to get past sanctions.
I agree that forfeiture is a huge problem but I’m missing what Bitcoin adds to this versus, say, just not keeping large quantities of cash. I don’t hear about cops running charges on people’s cards, for example.
I'm actually confident that America will eventually get it right. I expect that America, when backed into it, will legislate your rights to protect the fruits of your labour. And then they'll have the moral authority again. They're just going to have to work harder in diplomacy. Which they are quite capable of doing at times. Underrated? Treaty with Iran. Iran ain't really in the news of late? That is better.
But to your question, keeping $1 million in cash, all legitimately acquired, in your house, which could be seized under the flimiest of pretenses, is madness. Bank? Gold? No thanks.
It's going to happen eventually. You might as well figure out how to get used to it. In spite of how the US sometimes is, they have inevitably come down on the right side of history.
> your Bitcoin will be seized and liquidated like everything else
I suspect there's a difference. Old-style, the Man says to the bank, "Hey, until further notice, acdha's money isn't theirs anymore." The bank says "Yes, sir." Then you try to contest this using a lawyer on contingency or something, I don't know.
New-style, they say to you, "Hand over your private keys, you don't own them anymore." You say, "I'm calling my lawyer." Maybe the process ends in the same place, maybe it doesn't, but if possession is really whatever percentage of the law, outcomes will change on the margin accordingly.
New style seems more like they hold your devices until someone can crack them and/or keep you in jail without access until you hand over the keys, which a judge agrees to because there’s no other way to freeze your accounts. Meanwhile, the prosecutor is going to use not following existing financial disclosure/access laws as proof that you must be doing something really bad – and since those assets are off limits, you’re relying on an overworked public defender.
I'm thinking this is mainly an issue for the kind of people who store offshore wealth already (like the Russians this topic started with). Apparently there are trillions of dollars kept that way. They're generally not the sort who get stuck with public defenders, and my point is that cryptocurrencies could make that wealth of the wealthy even harder to confiscate.
(Yes, I did use you in the example instead -- a distracting choice, sorry.)
Devils advocate: That assumes they know about all of your wallets? It would be relatively easy to hand over one but keep another they don't know about right?
How did anything get into those wallets in the first place? If it involved any legitimate business or a known address, they know you had something and will follow up.
If it’s totally off the books, you need to flee to a few countries with lax banking laws before accessing it because you’ll have to explain either the income or non-trivial purchases (“how does a guy reporting $100k salary buy a $500k house in cash?” is the kind of thing which routinely catches small scale crooks).
Do any of that wrong, well, you probably lied to a federal agent and can face severe penalties for that alone.
Again, playing devils advocate, but plenty of cash heavy small businesses (bars, restaurants, laundry services) keep things off the books to avoid taxes and get away with it. So why would this be any different with crypto?
Instead of a shoebox or an off-site safe you would just use a wallet and deposit crypto into that. The crypto could be purchased using something like localmonero or anonymously deposited by a friend who you give cash to.
Crypto currencies like monero have built in privacy so it’s possible to have anonymous transactions where it’s hard for police to trace the origins:
Now I’m sure some people will be caught doing stuff like this in the same way that some people get caught today avoiding paying taxes. My point is that it’s possible to do and it’s likely going to get easier to do.
The big change with crypto is that it makes it much easier to do the above and move it across borders. It will be interesting to see how governments try to restrict this.
> How did anything get into those wallets in the first place?
I think you misunderstand the nature of freedom and rights. I don't have to explain what I did with my money. I have the presumption of innocence. You don't get to trawl through my financial records looking for a crime. You have to have probable cause that I have committed a crime, and then seek supporting evidence for it.
I think it's funny that the country with the first and second amendment is the one that has, for decades, pushed the restriction of rights in money. Americans seem to have forgotten what a right even is. With the first amendment, people aren't legally 'allowed' to say what they want. The government doesn't have the right to stop you saying what you want. With the second amendment, people aren't legally 'allowed' to have guns. The government doesn't have the right to take them away from you. For too long the surveillance state has crept in, and now there are people that believe that you have to prove your innocence. Incorrect. You have to prove I have a case to answer, and I get to protect myself from self-incrimination, and you have to prove that case beyond reasonable doubt.
That is what is so insidious about civil asset forfeiture. It is civil. Instead of proving beyond reasonable doubt that you have committed a crime, all they have to prove is the balance of probabilities. You are treated like a criminal, but it isn't you who is the criminal, it is your assets. When they don't know your assets, nor have access to your assets, because they can't just confiscate the cash out of your car, your house, or your bank, you are protecting yourself.
> I don't have to explain what I did with my money. I have the presumption of innocence. You don't get to trawl through my financial records looking for a crime
Do you think you have to pay taxes? If so, the government needs the authority to confirm that transactions are properly accounted for.
> the government needs the authority to confirm that transactions are properly accounted for.
Ludicrously false. You clearly have no idea how the law works. You must think you live in a police state. In spite of what you might think, if you live in a western democracy, you don't. You fill in your little boxes on the form and you pay your taxes. You may be asked to justify the numbers in the boxes.
You seem to have a bizarre belief that something illegal or wrong is occuring. You realize you're not a slave, right? You realize you have rights, right? You know what a right is, right? You realize the law is a list of things you can't do, not a permission list of what you can do, right?
We've banned this account for repeatedly violating the HN guidelines. If you don't want to be banned on HN, you're welcome to email hn@ycombinator.com and give us reason to believe that you'll follow the rules in the future.
To bust sanctions is to go against the Washington consensus. But why did bitcoin become popular with American's in the first place?
The answer is that the Washington consensus has evolved to be just as opposed to the interest of every day American's as it is to the interests of states like Russia and Iran. Civil liberties have been eroded in the name of terrorism and pedophiles for a long time now. No amount of voting seems to fix these problems.
The founding fathers put gun rights in the constitution under the belief that the final protection of personal freedoms is the ability to defend it for yourself. Cryptography is the guns of the 21st century.
If bitcoin is being used to bust sanctions, its a problem that could have been avoided if the plutocrats in Washington hadn't prosecuted the endless drug war, engaged in civil forfeiture, used taxes to pursue unpopular bailouts, and just generally gave people a reason to want to exit their financial system.
Again, my point isn’t that the state of executive powers is great but rather that magical thinking about technology won’t solve them.
Moving real money into Bitcoin will leave a paper trail, as does moving it out. If you don’t disclose that or surrender control when required by law, they’re not going to just give up — that’s more like jail time until you cooperate (money laundering is an obvious lever), and most other countries will go along with that. Similarly, companies which are trying to be legit aren’t going to touch tainted bitcoins since they don’t want to be pulled in as accomplices.
>If you don’t disclose that or surrender control when required by law, they’re not going to just give up.
But its trivial to manage several separate financial persona's (wallets) and generally amortize yourself against losing/revealing everything.
>and most other countries will go along with that.
Countries within the Western sphere of influence sure. Just look at how the US got that BTC-E Russian on holiday in Greece. But consider the fact that some countries have more to gain by destroying US financial hegemony than they stand to lose by their own citizens petty crime. Russia makes bitcoin completely unregulated. So you try to contain the problem by blocking Ruble/USD exchange. Then China follows Russia's lead. Now you contain the problem by blocking RMB/USD exchange? Pretty soon you've locked so much of the world out that really all you've done is lock yourself in.
In the near future there will be so many leaks that the US and the West in general doesn't have enough fingers to plug every hole.
> But its trivial to manage several separate financial persona's (wallets) and generally amortize yourself against losing/revealing everything.
How does money enter or leave those accounts? If you started with real money, converting it into Bitcoin leaves a paper trail and it’s on you to show where it went for any non-trivial amount.
If you received Bitcoin, attempting to spend it has the same problem – if you didn’t disclose it, that alone has hefty penalties.
The other point to remember is that everything people describe looks really bad if there’s any hint to clue an investigator in. Most people are going to have some slip and this will all be used as proof of intent.
At that point, why not use cash? You’re already restricting yourself to small amounts and avoiding major purchases, so what does adding a cryptocurrency give you?
As as been repeatedly demonstrated to you, holding cash is unsafe, because it can be seized by the government without you ever having committed a crime.
> what does adding a cryptocurrency give you?
As has been repeatedly demonstrated to you, you have protection from it being seized through the insidious civil asset forfeiture procedure.
> But why did bitcoin become popular with American's in the first place?
Because it looked like a get-rich-quick scheme, and Americans like those as much as anyone else. More, in some cases, because there is a lot of cultural baggage in the US around the idea of becoming not just comfortable, but fantastically, fuck-you wealthy, from nothing, by getting in on the ground floor of some expanding industry or company.
People went crazy for canal stocks in the 1790s, railroads in the 1840s, industrials and utilities in the 1920s, Nifty Fifty in the 70s... and more recently, of course, dot-com stocks and then real estate. Lot of people out there looking for the Next Big Thing.
Most people in the market don't give a shit about Bitcoin as anything other than a vehicle for speculation.
People could alternately rally around strong thought leaders and get them elected. The problem is most people vote based on knee-jerk reactions and there is too money easily in politics.
I mentioned it twice because it was relevant to the discussion. Vast majority of my posts have nothing to do with Monero.
I prefer not to disclose my personal finances. If you think I'm hyping alt coins on HN for personal gain well then I guess there's nothing I'm willing to do to disprove that hypothesis.
How do you effectively blacklist an address when you can just generate a new one? Treat it like a one time pad; unless the government is sending out these black lists in real time (but even then...)
You could blacklist the originated address and then algorithmically ban any addresses they have spent money to, recursively.
If your address is banned by being downstream, you have to do an in person ID check or whatever and explain where you got the coins from.
Edit:
I have always wondered about the fungability of bitcoin. The case above would mean you have some 'hot' bitcoins that are probably worth less than market value. Someone may buy them with freshly mined ones for an exchange rate < 1.
Another scenario is really old bitcoins from 2010. Would they be worth more to 'collectors' if you can get a nice lineage.
Old transaction outputs will be worth more at very least because future forks will try to legitimize their distribution as being, at least, no worse than Bitcoin by cloning its blockchain. Though that tactic may have run its course by now, if you already hold old outputs you probably aren't inclined to move them anyway, especially if they have the potential to spawn new, disposable offspring.
Bitcoin is just a chain of transactions. This address to this address to this address to this address, right back to the block it was created in. It is not terribly difficult to validate whether the payment you're currently looking at existed as bitcoin in that address at some point or another. Like I said though, even the ability of that is likely to be undermined over the next 3-4 years.
I wouldn't be surprised, but I don't think this will have been at the direction of the US government, and not in a coordinated way. I would expect they have identified funds that have come from known hacks, and blacklisted them. But as I said, it wouldn't surprise me that much. If it hasn't happened already, it's going to. Only a matter of time.
I think it's one of the reasons why they have been so against some of the other crypto technologies like segwit and lightning. It removes them from the possibility of having that oversight role. I'm not the conspiracy type really, but it wouldn't come as a surprise that they have already had these discussions with regulatory authorities. Common sense really. The only real question is whether they have been encouraged to support or undermine technologies based upon those hypothetical discussions. They are who they are, and they work in that regulatory environment. It's not to be negative about them. They have a hand dealt to them, they play it.
Indeed ! On some deeply visceral level, I really want the underdogs to beat the US (yes, I know the rulers of said places are not exactly 'nice' folk.)
It's perfectly feasible to stop it: Acquire sufficient computational resources to rewrite the blockchain history, and use it to discredit the blockchain as a reliable medium of exchange by constructing double spends.
I suspect that all cryptos that want to survive will need to implement this technology in their blockchain at some point or another. Already, there has been chain trading between litecoin, decred, and bitcoin that I know of. I'm sure there will be more going forward.
The problem is that our existing financial system probably had an intention of using inflation to encourage commerce and trade, but over the past 40 years, that focus shifted from using debt for the funding of productive enterprises to debt being used for the bidding up of fixed assets like houses, but also stocks. The only thing that mattered to this bidding process was capital growth. The solution to these bubbles wasn't to reign in debt creation, or to force the targeting of debt creation to productivity, but to simply increase it. Bubble after bubble after bubble, crisis after crisis after crisis. But not only that, a death in productive capacity, which is all too apparent to the middle-income demographic.
Because of this irresponsibility of the finance world, crypto-currency technology was developed to allow people to park their productive gains in inflation resistant financial instruments. So in order to get these people to part with their inflation resistant instrument, you will have to convince them that you will give a better return than inflation, and that means by increasing productivity. You can no longer just create more debt, because the only thing that will do is increase the value of the deflationary asset, by decreasing the value of the inflationary one. That means if you want to survive as a national currency, you better start working on education and building productive capacity, because you'll no longer be able to fleece your populace whenever banking execs are looking to buy a new bentley.
It's forever part of Bitcoins orgin story that it begin as hyperinflationary and has since slowed the minting of more BTC.
The irony is the mythos of bitcoin being "deflationary" is not historically accurate and the supply is inflating every 10 minutes.
What Bitcoiners conveniently omit from explanation in Satoshis protocol is the initial "dump" of the supply to the first few users who ran the software. This is a malicious design decision intended to control the supply early.
Any user who joins the network must than attempt to psychologically exploit new users by selling their asset previously generated for less effort/work/watts as the protocol increases in difficulty to any new user.
Yes, but many believe Satoshi to be dead or to have lost the keys. I'm not arguing that the wealth distribution is good, I'm just saying it's a little ridiculous to assume that the choice was malicious.
Satoshi could have used a linear growth curve. Instead he used a log curve, giving himself and the smallest user group possible (first users to run the software within the limited timeframe where the hyperinflation took place) control of the majority of the supply for the least amount of work possible.
All users entering the system late beyond users before them are needlessly exploited.
If you find it exploitative, you are free to create and use your own crypto instrument without these properties that you take offense to. All of the code is available for you to modify as you see fit, as it is open source. If you believe it has value, all you need to do is to convince others of the superior nature of your implementation, and surely they will adopt your solution for their crypto needs.
? It is deflationary because it is known what the total number will be, and coins will be permanently lost over time.
> Any user who joins the network
They do this out of free choice do they not? No one is coerced into acquiring bitcoin. There isn't even a coordinating body, like a company, that controls the issuance or exchange of tokens. I would encourage any person that invests in anything to understand what they are investing in before they commit their funds to it. Bitcoin is extremely unforgiving if you don't manage your security well.
None of this has anything to do with your incorrect usage of words though. You can't just invent new definitions of words because you don't like something, and you think it would be nice to assign that word to it. You don't like it. Fair enough. Don't invest in it.
Bitcoin is inflationary until the year 2140, and assuming no fork changes that sooner.
If you actually understand Satoshis algorithm and history you'll take notice at how the supply was intended to benefit the first few users to run the software during the brief phase of hyperinflation and production for minimal work, while later users are punished merely for running the same protocol and offering the same computational work equivalent to prior users.
If you consider how easy a linear curve could have been chosen by Satoshi instead of the reverse log curve, you'll understand the manipulative nature of how Bitcoin exploits new users.
The supply inflates every 10 minutes, this by definition is inflation.
You presume that the future was predictable in 2009. Satoshi had no way of knowing whether the Bitcoin experiment would truly work or not. How many times have we thought, "Bitcoin is surely dead" due to some Mt Gox / Silk Road / China ban scandal? It's crazy to call the people who stuck it out and believed in the coin "exploitative" when they lost 90% of their value time and time again and still did not sell.
Production costs of 50BTC per every 10 minutes has historically been a fractions of or a few pennies. Only for later users has the cost gradually increased.
The way you and many others approach Bitcoin as a tool to horde and sell to other rubes is indicative of the manipulative design where unsuspecting new users don't understand the history.
Historically? 50BTC every 10 minutes for pennies? Those prices haven't been seen since 2012 or earlier.
If you don't like Bitcoin's model, choose another altcoin to back, there's dozens of them and some of them even have inflationary models. No one is forcing anyone to buy into anything.
> The supply inflates every 10 minutes, this by definition is inflation.
Well, it's inflation of the money supply, but (while certain fringe groups confuse the issue) that's not what “inflation” alone normally refers to, which is instead price inflation, which is approximately inflation in the ratio of money supply to the utility-weighted size of the market.
Oh please. If you want to reduce the environmental impact of bitcoin mining, it is very simple. Just increase the cost of energy. It will make absolutely zero difference to bitcoin.
> The German giant was kept in the dark about the true owners of suspicious FBME accounts whose transactions it was authorizing – despite requirements for correspondent banks to perform additional checks when signs of money laundering arise.
Yeah. Sure.
> Deutsche showered FBME with “Processing Excellence” awards for at least four straight years before the bank was named as a “primary money laundering concern” by the US government.
Yep. Clearly there was a lot of money to be made.
> Deutsche has faced questions over why it lent Trump more than $600 million at a time when other Wall Street banks had frozen him out. The bank was reportedly subpoenaed by special counsel Robert Mueller, who is apparently investigating the US president’s finances alongside his campaign’s contacts with Russia.
